everythingbeeps:It's always disappointing to find out that your elected officials are actually really stupid (particularly those, like Feinstein, who are from my own party!) Democrats are supposed to be the smarter ones.

We're not even talking about difference of opinion here. These people are dumb.

People who are dumb shouldn't be allowed to affect laws.

I always thought that Democrats were the hippies that think they know what you need better than you do, and the Republicans are the fat bastards that are perfectly content as long as they get to see an explosion in some foreign country every few minutes.

Why can't it be a requirement that in order for a politician (well anyone really... but especially politicians), they have to actually research the issue, and actually understand what they're talking about?

'Series of tubes', anyone?

Anyway... I already know why that'll never happen: because then, every politician would have to remain silent for the rest of their careers.

No way anyone's getting rid of Feinstein no matter how crazy the shit is she says because she's rich and connected - like the vast majority of politicians. She'd need to be caught doing multiple felonies to have any hope of getting her out of office.

I always thought that Democrats were the hippies that think they know what you need better than you do, and the Republicans are the fat bastards that are perfectly content as long as they get to see an explosion in some foreign country every few minutes.

Don't really see the appeal to either, really.

These days it's the lesser of two evils. I'm democrat because I agree with most of what they stand for, but also because I think republicans are inherently evil and need to be stopped. Most republicans will probably agree with the reverse.

Mr. Omega:I'm just going to post this video every time a politician starts talking about how bad fake guns are while we haven't passed any sort of laws to fix up our loophole-filled, poorly enforced gun laws.

awesome, and perfect demostration of the stupidity of politicians everywhere

These days it's the lesser of two evils. I'm democrat because I agree with most of what they stand for, but also because I think republicans are inherently evil and need to be stopped. Most republicans will probably agree with the reverse.

And you're both being played against one another, avoiding the sins of the people you put in office because the other guy is 'so much worse'. They're both corrupt millionaires who's only concern is to enrich their friends and themselves yet somehow you got it in your head that you're preventing a catastrophe from taking place by letting the one you like personally sit in charge. The catastrophe's already happening.

I always thought that Democrats were the hippies that think they know what you need better than you do, and the Republicans are the fat bastards that are perfectly content as long as they get to see an explosion in some foreign country every few minutes.

Don't really see the appeal to either, really.

These days it's the lesser of two evils. I'm democrat because I agree with most of what they stand for, but also because I think republicans are inherently evil and need to be stopped. Most republicans will probably agree with the reverse.

This is why I don't partake in partisan politics. All it does is divide the common folk to have them pitted against each other while both parties pull all kinds of bullshit behind the ensuing smoke screen.

These days it's the lesser of two evils. I'm democrat because I agree with most of what they stand for, but also because I think republicans are inherently evil and need to be stopped. Most republicans will probably agree with the reverse.

And you're both being played against one another, avoiding the sins of the people you put in office because the other guy is 'so much worse'. They're both corrupt millionaires who's only concern is to enrich their friends and themselves yet somehow you got it in your head that you're preventing a catastrophe from taking place by letting the one you like personally sit in charge. The catastrophe's already happening.

Yes, they're both corrupt millionaires. But we have to vote for one of them. It's just the trap we've found ourselves in because we weren't careful about how we created this democracy. It's a nice sentiment to pretend that we can vote for someone else, but it just doesn't work that way. Politics is completely broken in this country, and all we can do is pick the lesser of two evils. I'll vote for the guy who ISN'T going to try to ban abortion or gay marriage. I'll vote for the guy who isn't going to try and put bibles back in the classroom. Yes, whoever I vote for is going to do a lot of shitty things, but at least he isn't going to do those shitty things.

The reason she keeps getting reelected is because theres no other democrat running for election to replace her. If one did run against her she would be out by an overwhelming majority. the people who vote for her do not want a republican no matter what and any other party just doesnt get enough publicity to compete.

In Search of Username:>Refuses to ban guns in real life because it's unconstitutional>Wants to ban guns in video games, in a country supposedly founded entirely on freedom of expression

AMERICA, EVERYONE! /sarcastic applause

Umm actualy feinstein wants to ban guns and would be more than happy with it even if it required a house to house search and seizure from the police. She really isnt all there in the head.

I know that I will be beaten for this statement but... I am very happy to have Mrs. Dianne Feinstein as my senator. While I disagree with her statement,I feel that the anger on this thread needs to stop. Just because you all seem to hate your senators from your states, it dose not mean that you now have to take it out on her for a statement that was clearly taken out of context.I am a gamer that likes violent video games and even i think that video game makers need to stop making so many.What we need in this country is a better conflict resolution program, something that teaches our kids that violence is never the right answer to any problem.

Many is not all,believe it or not.By that i mean: just because there has been *reports* of *gamers* doing something stupid and blaming it on Video games,doesn't mean every single one of them will do the same thing,ain't it only about the individual on that note?and also,i think it's more of a ...Political trick,to get the older folks to Vote on them.

Sorry, wasn't the Sandy Hook guy the one with the Christian nutter of a mother who trained him how to use guns?

Aside from that, all the most depraved acts of violence I've ever witnessed have come from books, and I don't look this shit out; read any crime novel and I guarantee the murders in it will be more graphic than anything you find in a movie, song or video game.

rob_simple:Sorry, wasn't the Sandy Hook guy the one with the Christian nutter of a mother who trained him how to use guns?

Aside from that, all the most depraved acts of violence I've ever witnessed have come from books, and I don't look this shit out; read any crime novel and I guarantee the murders in it will be more graphic than anything you find in a movie, song or video game.

Then again, books are the old enemy, so why waste time on them.

After books it was movies. After that was the internet. I'm sure there will be something after games to take on the role of boogyman to cast blame onto.

I'm currently training to be a Witcher right now, To think my dream of becoming a genetically enhanced monster slayer is all thanks to videogames Practice simulators, Truly we live in a wondrous world.

The thing is, she doesn't want to ban all guns from games, so this will never work. The Supreme Court has recognized video games as being protected by the first amendment. And you can ban certain proclamations or images from falling under the first amendment entirely, but you can't set an upper-limit quota for them.If you ban them you assume that they're so damaging to society that they can't be used at all, but since guns are allowed in art and film, they're deemed unharmful, so they can be used in video games as well. And the government can't set a certain quota, because then that would mean that individual developers might be constrained by social trends which they have no power over (precisely the interest which the first amendment seeks to protect).But I do love news stories like these. It makes the comments section the ideal place for target practice. Let's see what I can bag this time...

Actually, speaking worldwide, crime is estimated to be higher than throughout history, owing to the rapid growth of populations in countries and regions which are more susceptible to crime (read: corrupt nations and cities). Also, the rise of video surveillance and computer technology has affected the way in which we monitor crimes and process associated records so that more crime can be documented and thus attributed to statistics. This separates modern crime figures from older ones. However, taking all that into account, it is true that there is less recorded crime in the United States and most other Western nations.But even if there were fewer crimes your argument would still be a very weak argument, considering that there is no causal link between the two trends of more people playing video games and fewer violent crimes being committed. It's like saying: "It rains more often the morning after we do this rain dance." It might be a factually correct statement, but it doesn't prove any scientific causality. So scientifically speaking, it's entirely possible that video games stimulate aggressive behaviour on an individual and psychological level, while not showing up in sociological studies (although it's worth noting that there is no scientific research which proves the psychological link either).

theSteamSupported:People usually commit murder, theft, rape etc on the basis of lacking decent living standards.

Again, as far as poverty and crime are concerned, although there is academic consensus that the two are related, the cause and effect are very much disputed among scientists. It is entirely possible that crime is the basis for "lacking decent living standards", rather than the other way around. On which side of the argument you fall really depends on your position on the political spectrum and less on what is factually correct.

Grabehn:My entire mid to early highschool was spent playing GTA and CoD, and I almost fainted when I sliced the side of my finger while pairing an orange. I'm totally a sociopathic killer, obviously, desensitized to blood... yeah right.

Right, because your individual perception is the way things are. "I own a gun and I never shoot people with it, so no other gun-owner ever shoots anyone." Or: "We had the coldest winter ever, so obviously Global Warming is a myth."

valium:It is not an American thing, it is an idiot thing. They happen to be all over the world, we just have a bad habit of electing them into office.

I think that might say quite a lot about Americans as well, though...

Rogue 09:I would feel better if we just had randomly selected people picked up off the street and forced to serve to two years...

Except Hippies.

Never Hippies...

Right, because who the hell wants leaders who are dedicated to everlasting peace? Of course, I say that sarcastically now, but I'd be singing a very different tune if when China invades and my own country no longer has a formal military.

LysanderNemoinis:Yeah, problem with that is that most of the hippies back then are the people in power now.

Not most, "some", maybe... Thing about power is, there isn't much of it to go around, or else it wouldn't be power.

Mr.K.:You know if there was a law against stupidity passed first things would move along much quicker.

There is. It's known as Darwinian evolution. It's just that it doesn't look very fast in a human lifetime.

BoogieManFL:Maybe if senators were force to retire before 50 we'd be led by people more in touch with reality and life.

So... people over 50 have nothing left to offer to a society? I'll remind you of that when you turn 50. Also, in theory people on the Hill are older because they've been around longer and are thus more experienced. Do you really want to sacrifice all people who are more qualified because some of them are "out of touch" with your own demographic on one single issue?